Your Excellency,
I beseech your Excellency most humbly to grant me the favour of allowing me to take 14 days’ leave of absence in order that, by observing a suitable diet, I might ward off a gastric complaint which, to judge by my symptoms, is currently threatening my health.
At the same time I consider it my personal duty to justify a step which, although unrelated to the nature of my artistic appointment, is one in which I should not wish to be misunderstood, least of all by Your Excellency.
At a time when even the most uneducated among us is conceded the right to express his views on the current state of our nation’s affairs, the educated citizen recognizes how much more it is incumbent upon him to take equal advantage of that right. The factional differences among the inhabitants of the town during the last 14 days have forced those with opposing views to adopt such an extreme position that no outside observer can escape the resultant sense of uneasy tension. I myself have joined that society in which the progressive party finds its most decisive expression: partly because I recognize that the progressive party is the party of the future, and partly in consideration of the fact that this party more than any other needs men of intelligence and mildness of disposition to discourage it from crude excesses. I have attended their meetings on only rare occasions, and have never taken part in their debates but stood by merely as an observer: thus I have recently come to realize that it is precisely because of the violent attacks of the so-called monarchists that a spirit of defiance has emerged there with increasingly disturbing consequences: according to current thinking, it is not in itself a crime to declare a republic to be the best form of government: but in most people’s minds the thought of a republic necessarily leads on to a belief in the need to abolish the monarchy. Nowhere have I met an orator or a political writer who has paid heed to the idea that the monarchy could continue to remain the sacred focus around which every conceivable popular institution might then be set up; no, rather has the idea of a republic always been directly associated with the assumption that the monarchy will thereby cease to exist: it is this assumption alone which has prevented the mass of the people & their leaders from deciding in favour of the immediate introduction of that form of government; they linked it instead to all manner of conditions which, while not expressing any criminal intent, can only & indeed must only lead to every conceivable misinterpretation. My concern, therefore, was to make it perfectly clear to people that, whatever our aims might be, the monarchy itself has never been directly opposed to such aspirations; and that all our aims could very well be achieved on a more permanent basis with the monarchy: - The popular party regards the existing form of the Court, with all its outdated and external characteristics, as something of a scandal: I have heard remarks on this subject from people who are far from belonging exclusively to the lowest orders, and these remarks have given me profound insights into the spirit of the people; what they say is more or less that, “once the King has gone, the Court, too, will cease to exist.” Now I ask myself: should we encroach upon the monarchy simply because of these external characteristics? No! These external features may disappear, & with them will go a source of discontent which is now directed against the king himself. It was in this context & proceeding along these lines that I considered what is under attack & finally came to the conclusion that, if this could disappear, then everything else would disappear which makes us disaffected with the monarchy. At this point it was only natural that I should feel the desire to convince both parties, monarchists as well as republicans, of the truth of the view I had now arrived at, in order that, were I to be successful, I might lead both parties forwards towards a common goal: retention of the monarchy & with it internal peace. At the same time I was inevitably concerned to shed light on the meaning of the word “republic” - a noble concept which has been so misunderstood even by its own party - & thus to show how the monarchy could for the first time find its true justification within it. It was this desire alone which prompted me to draw up that essay: if, in order to reach my intended goal, I was obliged now & again to attack existing institutions, the fear of making enemies could not be allowed to deter me from giving expression to a deeply felt conviction whose intended aim was not disharmony, but harmony & concord. The warmth of this conviction is to blame for my personal intervention in support of this cause. When I recently attended a meeting of the society, it was to be greeted by those very same speeches which make a direct connection between the concept of a republic - which it cannot be denied is now the main thought occupying the minds of the majority of the people - and the abolition of the monarchy: fully conscious that I was expressing a sound & salutary thought very much for the benefit of this assembly, I resolved there & then to read out my essay, & even if this step had failed to achieve any worthwhile aim, there is one aim which it has undeniably fulfilled: never before in this society has our King been accorded such enthusiastic praise, never before has his name been taken up with animated acclaim as was the case when I read out the passage in my speech in praise of his sterling virtues. -[...]
Source: Selected Letters of Richard Wagner, trans. and ed. Stewart Spencer and Barry Millington (W. W. Norton & Company, 1988), No. 81